T

he Indonesian Education Monitoring Network, a coalition focusing on education, has criticized the Constitutional Court for its plan to deliver a verdict on a judicial review filed by the coalition against Article 6 Point 1 of Law No. 20/2003 on the national education system.

The coalition'€™s program manager, Ruby Atul Adawiyah, said on Tuesday that the court had scheduled a verdict session on Oct. 7, without any preceding trial.

'€œThe court is supposed to hold hearings presenting witnesses, experts and other related parties before delivering the verdict,'€ Ruby told reporters at a press conference.

The coalition filed the judicial review to the court on Sept. 5, 2014. It insisted that the article in question, which stipulates that primary education is compulsory for all citizens aged seven to 15, was outdated.

The ages seven to 15, Ruby said, encompassed elementary and junior high school but excluded senior high school, meaning that compulsory education lasted only nine years.

'€œWe want the court to increase the compulsory nine years to a compulsory 12 years,'€ she said.

Under the current system, she went on, many students, especially those from low-income families, decided not to continue their education to senior high school, making it more difficult for them to find work.

'€œWhat vacancies exist for people who have only passed junior high school?'€ she asked.

The coalition'€™s lawyer, Ridwan Darmawan, said that the article also contravened Article 31 of the 1945 Constitution stipulating that all citizens were obliged to obtain primary education, with tuition fees covered by the government.

'€œThe primary education mentioned in the article was intended to be from elementary to senior high school,'€ Ridwan said.

Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) investigation coordinator Febri Hendri said that by delivering its verdict without a trial, the court was failing to show transparency.

Febri cited articles 45 and 36 of Law No. 23/2003 on the Constitutional Court stipulating that the court was required to deliver a verdict based on evidence and the judges'€™ conviction, with the evidence including testimony from witnesses, experts and other related parties.

'€œThe court has not seen enough evidence to deliver a verdict,'€ Febri said.

However, the Constitutional Court claimed that it had the authority to make a valid ruling without a trial.

Former Constitutional Court chief justice Hamdan Zoelva said that the court was not required to gather evidence and testimony from witnesses to decide the verdict of a judicial review.

'€œIt'€™s just a judicial review. It is lawsuits that require witnesses and evidence,'€ Hamdan said.

He added that the verdict for a judicial review depended on the decision of the panel of judges, with no testimony required from delegates of the House of Representatives or the government. (foy)